.........Judge says application lacks merit
The Ogun State High Court sitting in Ijebu-Ode has declined to grant an interim injunction sought by an aspirant to the Awujale of Ijebuland stool, Otunba Wasiu Olasunkanmi Ayinde Adesanya Marshall.
The ruling was delivered on Monday by the presiding judge of High Court 3, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division, Hon. Justice A. A. Omoniyi, who held that the interim injunction prayed for by the applicant lacked merit.
Marshall had asked the court to restrain the Ogun State Government and other respondents from taking any further steps in the process of selecting the next Awujale pending the determination of his suit.
Despite refusing the interim relief, Justice Omoniyi ordered an expeditious hearing of the substantive matter and fixed 14 January 2026 for proceedings.
The applicant is challenging the Awujale succession process, citing alleged breaches of the Ogun State Chieftaincy Law and violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing.
*APPLICATION IS REFUSED!*
OTUNBA KING WASIU AYINDE MARSHALL VS. IJEBULAND.
*Verbatim Report.*
Wahab Shittu SAN appeared for the Claimant.
Dr. Shittu then identifies his application dated 16 December 2025, supported by a 30-paragraph affidavit.
He mentions that the application is brought under Order 38 Rule 4 and Order 39 Rule 1, as well as Section 36 of the CFRN.
The application seeks an interim order of the court to preserve the res pending the determination of the Originating Summons.
Dr. Shittu backtracks, asking the court to simply protect the res, stating it is particularly necessary now that some subterranean efforts were made to leak the process.
He urges the court to grant the application and order an accelerated hearing of the Originating Summons, undertaking to serve all parties.
He finishes by saying that this is a motion ex parte, and only the applicant can be heard.
The Court asks Dr. Shittu to refer to Order 39 Rule 2 of the Rules.
The provision states that all applications must be made on notice, and no application shall be made ex parte unless supported by a motion on notice.
The Court asks him if the application is not defective.
The Court states that motions for injunction are not substantive; they resolve or preserve issues pending the determination of a suit, and that principle would be violated if the Originating Summons is taken as the motion on notice.
Dr. Shittu responds, saying the court has discretion, that the issue is the protection of the majesty of the court, and that they rushed to the court for protection because they believed the applicant's fundamental right was being threatened.
He adds that even if it is a status quo order, they are fine with it, as it is necessary to protect the integrity of the court, which is not seized of jurisdiction.
RULING:
The Court has listened to the learned Senior Counsel and had a sober reflection on the facts.
The Court can protect the res, and an applicant in fear of breach can ask the court to protect his right.
However, the Court does not think an interim order can be granted pending the determination of the substantive suit, relying on Seven Up v. Abiola and City Express v. LASG.
The Court relies on Supreme Court precedent that interim applications must be filed alongside motions on notice.
The Court notes that the Applicant has not filed a motion on notice and refers to Order 39 Rule 2, which states that the court must not grant orders ex parte unless there's a motion for injunction.
Where a procedure is laid down for making an order, that's the only way to get the order.
It is fatal to an application for an interim order to not file a motion on notice.
Additionally, there's no undertaking as to damages, which, in a plethora of cases, has been held to be absolutely vital.
The application fails and is refused.
The Court, however, is not unaware of the urgency, so the Court orders the Applicant to serve the Originating Summons.
The matter is adjourned to 14 January 2025, for hearing.
Comments
Post a Comment